[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091110164055.a1b44a4b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:40:55 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with
nodemask v2
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:02 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Check this allocation failure is caused by cpuset's wall function */
> > > > + for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist,
> > > > + high_zoneidx, nodemask)
> > > > + if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall(zone, gfp_mask))
> > > > return CONSTRAINT_CPUSET;
> > >
> > > If cpuset and MPOL_BIND are both used, Probably CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY is
> > > better choice.
> >
> > No. this memory allocation is failed by limitation of cpuset's alloc mask.
> > Not from mempolicy.
>
> But CONSTRAINT_CPUSET doesn't help to free necessary node memory. It isn't
> your fault. original code is wrong too. but I hope we should fix it.
>
Hmm, maybe fair enough.
My 3rd version will use "kill always current(CONSTRAINT_MEMPOLICY does this)
if it uses mempolicy" logic.
Objections ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists